I'd like to have it reviewed. It's been on the VFH but failed as some fucking Poles from hated Polish Nonsensopedia came here voting for, admitting they are the Poles and knowing that I will have troubles due to that. SirPtok-BentonicznyPisz tutaj•KUN 18:19, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to be doing these, so I'll have this one done tomorrow. 48 hours max. --Matfen 23:47, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Writing style

I'm sure you are quite aware of my view on this article's grammar, seeing as we met when I dissed your syntax. It's okay, but the tone isn't really that uncyclopedic at times. For example, stating that "Jamaicans are far too lazy to run marathons" is a bit biased, stating that "Jamaicans are reknowned for being far too lazy to run marathons" is much more subtle and consistent with the tone of an article.

The wordings could be clearer as well. I understand part of this is my fault, as I gave it a good proofread while it was last on VFH, but the problem is that I have no f***ing clue what all this cricket terminology means. So I'm not entirely sure whether what I'm supposed to be reading is either grammatically wrong, or is just confusing to the average non-cricket enthusiast. What I did notice though, was the constant changes in tense. If you're going to detail one of his strategies, at least keep it all in the same tense so I can follow it easier.

Also, I noticed you do some of these cutaway gags where the narrator does a self-correction on himself. That would contrast and work more if the article was more intellectual. As well, the sentence after these cutaways doesn't seem to correspond with what he was originally going to say.

Spelling

I don't know how I missed this one. On the first quote, for some reason whispering is spelled "Whisphering".

There are probably a lot of cricket jokes in this article that rip on Holding, and his fans and haters may enjoy it. However, the distracting grammar and syntax may take away the punchline of some of the jokes. I remember when I first read the article, I had to re-read some sections over three times just to make sense of what was going on.

Averaged. You should also know that a lot of users may bawl like a baby at the small script in the article as it's not consistent with the rest of the format. I couldn't care less though, to be honest.

I know this pee review doesn't matter that much, as you are probably just looking to get this article featured legally as it is, without any fellow Polish brothers getting the nomination invalidated. Whatever. I'd probably vote for depending on how the tide is turning. Otherwise, I think I'll be abstaining.